Note: For the remainder of this post, the risk-free rate (\(R_f\)) is assumed to be 0.00, i.e. 100% of the portfolio is assumed to be invested in risky assets.

While the Sharpe Ratio is certainly a decent measure to form initial impressions of risk/reward, the remainder of this post aims to demonstrate why – on its own – it is not adequate for evaluating a trading strategy’s performance, and hence unsuitable for guiding investment decisions.

2) Where does the Sharpe Ratio fall short?

The following is a comprehensive (but by no means exhaustive) list of problems with the Sharpe Ratio, in the context of evaluating trading strategy performance.

2.1) Assumes Returns are Normally Distributed

By making use of standard deviation – a measure that assumes returns to be normally distributed – the Sharpe Ratio cannot adequately quantify behaviours observed in real world trading.

In fact, most strategies will demonstrate non-zero skewness and kurtosis, whereas a normality assumption will hypothesize that skewness is zero and underestimate tail risk.

Therefore, if using the Sharpe Ratio, a trading strategy experiencing, e.g. a period of unexpected, very exceptional performance may lead to a significant deviation from normality, acutely biasing the performance evaluation and misleading investment decisions.

Over and above the assumption of normality, the Sharpe Ratio doesn’t give any further information about the strategy’s actual distribution of returns.

2.2) Sensitive to Periodicity of Strategy Returns

Since the only component of the Sharpe Ratio‘s denominator is \(\sigma_p\), varying the periodicity over the same time interval will affect the output Sharpe Ratio.

This is due to the fact that excess return over the same time interval will stay the same, but the standard deviation of returns over different periods (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, etc) will be different.

In terms of performance evaluation, this is a risk since a more favourable Sharpe Ratio on one time frame, may possibly enforce a preference for that time frame and hence mislead an investment decision.

2.3) Insensitive to the “order” of excess returns.

Standard deviation as a measure, does not consider the order of data it is presented.

Two trading strategies with wildly different paths to the same excess return, could theoretically have the same standard deviation over the same time interval.

Using the Sharpe Ratio, it wouldn’t be possible to adequately evaluate which of the two is a more risk-efficient candidate for investment. Indeed, upon visual inspection of such strategies, the investor may have excluded one or the other regardless of its Sharpe Ratio.

2.4) Does not differentiate b/w Upside and Downside Volatility

Once again, owing to standard deviation \(\sigma_p\) being the Sharpe Ratio’s denominator, large fluctuations in excess returns (even when they’re positive) can effectively lower the Sharpe Ratio.

This is due to the fact that both 1) an unusually large gain, and 2) a similar-sized drawdown, can potentially increase the value of the standard deviation more than that of the excess returns, over the same time interval, effectively penalizing both good and bad performers.

This issue was addressed to an extent with the development of the Sortino Ratio, which takes only downside deviation (let’s call it \(\sigma_{downside}\)) into consideration. It is a modification to the Sharpe Ratio, the approach penalizing “bad volatility” instead of all volatility.

However, many of the problems with the Sharpe Ratio as discussed in this post also apply to similar variations.

2.5) What about periods of inactivity?

By design (excess return over standard deviation), a strategy’s Sharpe Ratio will decline over periods of trading inactivity despite no positions (i.e. zero return) being taken during that time.

2.7) Standard Deviation \(\sigma_p\) does not equal Risk

If the market barely moves, the standard deviation \(\sigma_p\) will be minimal.

But the strategy will still have traded with very high leverage and hence very high risk.

2.8) It is only applicable to strategies with low VaR (value-at-risk)

The Sharpe Ratio can really only be applied to trading strategies operating with low to mid-sized VaR, e.g. lower than 20% to 30% at maximum.

Let’s suppose a trader:

Has an amazing Win Ratio of 100:1

But risks all his capital on every single trade.

Given these dynamics, it is inevitable that the trader will lose all his capital at some point.

The Sharpe Ratio up until this strategy’s inevitable demise would have been quite spectacular 🙂

More alarmingly though, it could have mislead investors using it as a performance measure, to make ill-fated investment decisions.

However, if this same trader risked only 10% of his capital per trade (i.e. lower strategy VaR), he would likely make consistently spectacular returns without self-combusting.

At Darwinex, we measure Return/Risk (since inception) for DARWINS – a metric similar to the Sharpe Ratio – because a DARWIN’s risk is capped at 10% VaR, for which such a ratio is practical and adequately applicable.

In summary,

Because the Sharpe Ratio depends on the underlying strategy’s risk, on its own it cannot adequately judge a strategy’s performance.

3) Alternatives for Performance Measurement

If the objective is to measure trading strategy performance, it makes more sense to estimate:

A trading strategy’s performance compared to random strategies trading with the same risk profile.

How much risk a strategy can handle compared to random strategies trading the same asset profile.

In the Darwinex Analytical Toolkit, the Performance (Pf) investment attribute measures the former, while Return/Risk (since inception) measures the latter.

In this article, we are going to make use of the professional trader’s calculator to find out how much capital you need to earn a 6-figure salary ($ 100,000). This may vary depending on your trading style, time horizon, leverage, the mathematical expectancy of your strategy but, above all, of an aspect that you may […]

In this post, we describe the main features and behaviours of overfit trading strategies, and the risks they pose to both traders and DARWIN investors. Overfit trading strategies typically perform well in backtesting environments, creating the illusion that they exploit the market inefficiency being targeted, really well. However, when deployed in a live trading environment, […]

MetaTrader backtesting can be tricky business for algorithmic traders. Follow these best practices to engineer robust, reliable trading strategies. Watch the full video tutorial here (36 minutes). Simulating a strategy’s historical performance correctly, increases the probability of it generalizing well to unseen market data in future. As such, it’s important that all backtesting be conducted […]

Ever wondered what the common ingredient to trades, trading algorithms and Coke is? Easy! Intellectual Property! Agree that speculation is an IP industry? To understand the full implications for your trading income, look no further than Coca Cola: a lesson on capturing – or missing out on – the dividends accruing to intellectual property. The […]

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date with Darwinex news, we promise we won’t spam you!

Email

The Darwinex® trademark and the www.darwinex.com domain are owned by
Tradeslide Trading Tech Limited, a company duly authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority
(FCA) in the United Kingdom with FRN 586466. Our Company number is 08061368 and our registered office is Acre
House, 11-15 William Road, London NW1 3ER, UK.

This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to collect information about how you interact with our website and allow us to remember you. We use this information in order to improve and customize your browsing experience and for analytics and metrics about our visitors both on this website and other media. To find out more about the cookies we use, see our
Privacy Policy.

If you decline, your information won't be tracked when you visit this website. A single cookie will be used in your browser to remember your preference not to be tracked

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage.
77 % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether
you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.